I want to debate Iraq all night, and party ev-er-y day

July 17, 2007

So, Senate Dems really are going to launch a very long debate over Iraq policy tonight, including a rare overnight session. Reading over the various articles and reports, I’ve quickly come to realize that I need to brush up on Senate procedure, because at this point, I’m more than a little confused about exactly what to expect.

For example, will the Dems force filibustering Republicans to literally filibuster, that is, try and talk the bill to death? Not exactly. I’ve spoken to a few sources on the Hill, all of whom agreed that under existing rules, Senate Dems don’t have the ability to force the GOP to mount a traditional, old-school filibuster (i.e., reading from the phonebook for hours on end). A quorum call would cut such an effort short.

Instead, the Senate Dem leadership is pursuing the next best available option: filing for cloture, which offers 30 hours for debate, and keeping the Senate open for the entire 30 hours. Everyone I spoke to agreed that this explanation, which a staffer told to Greg Sargent, is right:

The portion of Rule 22 that Geiger discusses simply says that after cloture is invoked, there is a maximum of 30 hours of debate until an up or down vote on the matter. So that’s what would happen if the Democrats get 60 votes on the cloture motion that Reid will file today on the Levin-Reed amendment. Under Rule 22, whether or not the Senate stays in session all night tonight or Tuesday night, that vote will happen one hour after the Senate convenes on Wednesday (unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to a different time for the vote). If the cloture motion fails, then debate on the amendment continues and the 30 hour time limit never starts. So what Reid is doing is simply using his power as majority leader to keep the Senate open while the cloture motion “ripens.”

It’s not a literal filibuster, but it’s apparently the most aggressive option available to the Democratic leadership under existing rules: forcing Republicans who oppose an up-or-down vote on Levin-Reed to show up and explain why in a high-profile debate that’ll last for 30 hours.

The one thing I’m still unclear on is a point David Freddoso raised.

Right now, there are only 50 working Democratic Senators (Tim Johnson D, S.D. hasn’t cast a vote yet this year), and there are only 49 if you don’t include Joe Lieberman.

….You need 51 senators for a quorum, in the event that someone makes a quorum call — which any senator can make at any time. So all it takes is one Republican to stay in the chamber, object to anything the Democrats try to do, and then note the absence of a quorum. When the quorum is called, and only 50 senators are present, the Senate adjourns (or at least it can’t come out of the quorum call without unanimous consent), and the whole stupid stunt is over before Senator Byrd can even begin his outraged four-hour speech.

What’s more, some of Kevin Drum’s commenters noted that Republicans can also derail the 30-hour debate by boycotting it.

Bottom line: I’m still confused. That said, a) this should become clearer this afternoon; and b) if anyone understands the details and wants to explain, please feel free to share words of wisdom in the comments section.

Update: I’ve learned that Freddoso’s scenario is wrong. A source explains:

The way out of a quorum call is to wait for the clerk to get to the last name, Wyden, and turn to the chair and say that a quorum is not present. It is then that the Majority Leader may make a motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to Request the Presence of Absent Senators on which there is a rollcall vote. Members do not like to miss votes so they show up and vote and then we start this all over again.

Good to know.

I would be much more impressed with this tactic as a publicity stunt if CNN would actually cover it. Last night, I couldn’t find the story at all. Today, it’s at the bottom of the ‘latest news’ section, with the top story of the section being “Bush attends gold medal ceremony”.

  • …all it takes is one Republican to stay in the chamber, object to anything the Democrats try to do, and then note the absence of a quorum. When the quorum is called, and only 50 senators are present, the Senate adjourns (or at least it can’t come out of the quorum call without unanimous consent), and the whole stupid stunt is over…

    Gee, are there Republicans who would be willing to do that?

    If this is the way the rules are set up, Reid is even dumber than I thought. After he did his Senate Shutdown and then followed it up with nothing (trying to get Hack Robertson to cough up Phase 2 of the Iraq Intel investigation), I began to doubt Reid’s skills as a politician. He’s made some good moves, but this one looks like a real boner.

    We’ll see.

  • Please don’t dump on the Honorable Senator from Nevada. He is playing by the rules to effect an outcome. The Republicans in the Senate are using the rules to cowardly hide behind an imperial presidency that has damaged the balance of power in our government. These obstructionist Republicans do not represent democratic American ideals, but instead work to protect the vested interests they would rather represent for profitable gain. -Kevo

  • I don’t think it is a fiasco. The problem that the Dems face is not cloture, or even up or down votes. The problem is getting the message to the American people that the problem with moving anything forward is GOP obstructionism.

    So, you try to hold a debate, the GOP boycotts it, and the stunt ends. Then every politican with a D starts saying, “We tried to get an up or down vote on legislation, Republicans blocked it. We tried to just open the matter for debate, the Republicans wouldn’t show up. We understand the American peoples’ frustration, but the only way to change direction from the President’s disasterous occupation is for the American people to call their Republican representatives and let them know that their thwarting the will of the people will have severe consequences…”

    I think that every possible absurd stunt should be pulled, no matter how easy it is for the GOP to block it. The GOP built the ‘obstuctionist’ brand – making it stick is a political goal well worth pursuing.

    -jjf

  • If Reid can’t pull this off, he ought to be replaced. You can’t be majority leader and let the minority rule the day. (I feel stupid just having to write that.)

  • I like this tactic, but what I don’t see is the full-court-press of Democratic legislators and spokespeople all over the media explaining it, and framing it into a predigested narrative for the press to transcribe.

    Without that effort, it’s a huge waste of time. Already the media that is covering it is portraying it as some kind of weird Democratic stunt involving some niggling rule, playing right into the meme that the Dems are incompetent and would rather fuss around than Get Things Done.

    So, instead of dramatizing the lengths Dems need to go to in order to overcome Republican obstruction, it just feeds the “Congress is dithering” storyline.

    When will Congressional Democrats learn basic message management skills? Where are the framing soundbites? Where are the spokespeople on the Today Show? Where are the wingmen out complaining about Republican opposition to an up-or-down vote? Why wasn’t this stunt scheduled over the Webb Amendment, so they could be seen supporting the troops, and make the R’s explain why we couldn’t give our fighting men and women time off from Iraq?

    Sometimes, not belonging to an organized political party really, really sucks.

  • Hmmmm. Well when you put it that way…

    But I guess it leaves basically Republicans with two options: either engage in 30 hours of debate to block cloture or shut down the senate literally, as they already have done effectively. Either way it still accomplishes the initial objective of drawing attention to the back story — the fact that Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths, blocking everything that tries to move in the senate then going around pointing fingers at Democrats for getting nothing done.

    In this case though, winning the PR war becomes a lot more vital to the effort and that’s an obviously an area where Republicans have been out-gunning the Democrats in recent years. Still, Democrats have been improving their game and the landscape is shifting as well. I wouldn’t be prepared to call the match for either party in advance. It does help that Democrats are so clearly in the right that it may not completely escape the attention of even the current Washington press corpse (misspelling intentional).

  • Since Dems don’t ever seem to be asked to appear on shows like “Today” and the other morning shows, and there’s no guarantee that the media would bother to cover a press conference, what’s left? Do they just show up and ask for time?

    I mean, the media thinks it is covering a story by asking Republicans what they think about it, as opposed to asking someone like Harry Reid or Dick Durbin to explain it, and to say why they are doing it.

    They might possibly get some traction speaking to the hometown media, as opposed to trying to break through the glass of GOP-dominated national media.

  • Republicans continue to pout as Democratic adults try to find ways to end the republicans tantrum. Republicans only motive seems to be to use the rules to block any legislation Democrats propose from even coming to a vote in spite of the fact the legislation would pass if voted on. Demonstrating once again this is the party of hypocrisy who’s claim to govern is just to prevent anyone from governing.

  • Republicans couldn’t get their own legislation through when they were the majority. What hope do Dems have now.

  • I think Reid merely plans to say, “The Republicans want to debate – so why are they at home, sleeping while Democrats are all here and our soldiers are running night missions?”

    And after a few speeches one Republican will call for a quorum and Reid will simply adjourn.

    The only way that I can think of NOT to adjourn is to wheel in Sen. Tim Johnson – now THAT would be drama that CNN would cover!

  • “Since Dems don’t ever seem to be asked to appear on shows like “Today” and the other morning shows, and there’s no guarantee that the media would bother to cover a press conference, what’s left?” — Anne @ 10

    What’s needed is a proactive Democratic message machine such a biggerbox describes. Certainly, there are structural impediments within the media that stand in the Dems way, but what did the right do back when they felt they were getting short changed? They built an active PR machine (actually, many PR machines) and kept cranking the handle until, after a couple decades, we find ourselves where we are today.

    A concerted effort on the part of Dems to set the terms of our national discourse would give them something more interesting to say, infuse the party with energy and put the right on the defensive more often. As a result, Dems would be more attractive to the media — and at some point things would begin to snowball. Such an effort requires a lot of work, discipline, and a long-term outlook, but there is no alternative.

    Not taking the offensive and doing as biggerbox suggests only prolongs the agony of constant abuse that Dems receive at the hands of Repubs and the media.

  • I think a lot of people are forgetting exactly who owns the corporate media. It seems to be important to a lot of folks to control the narrative. They have thrown us a few bones with Olbermann on MSNBC or Bill Moyers on PBS or Bill Maher on HBO, but all of those voices usually require an advanced subscription to cable or satellite. PBS might be the only exception and look how the republic-thugs have messed with that institution over the last few years.

    As long as we the people tolerate such consolidation we can not expect an accurate dialogue coming from fat cats like David Brooks and millionaire anchors like Katie Couric. It is so much easier and more advantageous for them to say the people hate the congress more than they hate the president and leave it at that. It’s expensive to investigate and educate, so they will spoon feed the BS until we the people stop watching and call them to accountability,.

  • “Since Dems don’t ever seem to be asked to appear on shows like “Today” and the other morning shows, and there’s no guarantee that the media would bother to cover a press conference, what’s left?” — Anne @ 10

    In the short term:

    * call well-staged press conferences. if only a few people cover at first, fine. do it anyway. well-staged is a key requirement here, however, that Dems need to learn (this is the one and only thing BushCo is good at).

    * deluge print media, large and small, with Op-Ed pieces. some will get printed.

    * set up interviews with hometown TV, radio and print – they will almost always take the opportunity. go around Big Media to the people in hundreds of localities around the country.

    * direct mail. this kind of larger party-framing narrative is what DNC should be all about.

    * internet, blogs and direct e-mail. virtually cost free.

    * the presidential candidates do get some coverage – they need to lend a hand to Congressional leadership here.

    Longer term:

    * build a stronger message machine, like the Right did with Fox and talk radio.

    * build better mail and e-mail ditribution lists and mechanisms for rapid attack and response.

    * sustain Dean’s 50-state strategy against internal disputes. having “boots on the ground” everywhere is key to going around entrenched interests when we have to.

    * think tanks, 527s, training programs, coordination of interest groups – all things the right learned and developed slowly since the Goldwater loss and the anti-school-prayer decisions of the 60s that finally came of age in the 80s after 20 patient years. which is one of the things we have to learn: patience (and not starting so damned late at matching the opponents next time!)

    * nurturing of media watchdogs and a relentless attack on the “Right Wing Media” to put a countervaling fear in them like the right did for decades to get them to heel.

  • The only way that I can think of NOT to adjourn is to wheel in Sen. Tim Johnson – now THAT would be drama that CNN would cover!

    Comment by Ohioan

    Now that would be great political theatre. Excellent idea.

  • The 30-hour rule only kicks in if Reid gets his 60 votes for cloture. That’s not what this all-nighter is really about. Here’s how it works:

    Once the amendment is up for debate, it can only come to an up-or-down vote if with unanimous consent or if cloture is invoked by 60 votes. The Republicans won’t give unanimous consent, which in effect is a filibuster since nothing else can happen unless cloture is invoked or the amendment is pulled from the floor.

    so Reid has to try to invoke cloture. If he gets the 60 votes, the rule says that debate on the underlying question (i.e., the amendment) can continue only for 30 more hours. At the end of 30 hours an up or down will happen. Since it is inevitable, usually unanimous consent for an immediate vote is given as soon as cloture is invoked. This is not going to happen in this case, since there will not be 60 votes for cloture and the amendment will not see an up-or-down vote.

    Now here is the trick: a cloture petition cannot be considered until the next legislative day. You can’t get a vote to invoke cloture and start the 30-hour clock until the Senate adjourns for the day and reconvenes the next day. The way you get a Strom Thurmond-type filibuster is to take the floor and refuse to yield. In essence this means that tomorrow never comes, because the Senate can’t adjourn as long as the filibustering senator has the floor. As long as it is the same legislative day, the cloture motion can’t come to a vote. Of course, this true filibuster is only necessary if the votes for cloture are there, which is not the case on this amendment.

    What Reid is doing, essentially, is filibustering the cloture motion. He intends to keep the Senate in session all night to prolong the legislative day and keep the cloture motion from coming to a (failing) vote. In principle there is no limit to the amount of time this can take, so 30 hours is irrelevant. The cloture motion “ripens” as soon as the Senate adjourns for the day and convenes the next day, whether that happens in 1 hour or 100 hours.

    What Freddoso is driving as is Reid’s inability to keep the Senate from adjourning. You need 51 senators for a quorum, and if there is no quorum the body can adjourn immediately. When that happens, if it comes out of adjournment the cloture motion is ripe, so there goes your all-nighter. Assuming that the Republicans plus Lieberman maintain enough discipline not to show for a quorum call, the stunt really is over.

    The truly aggressive option would be to continue debate on the amendment endlessly, but that will get nowhere and cause Reid problems politically as he fruitlessly grinds the Senate to a halt. A tactic like that can only work if you have the president on your side; if the president is sniping at you from the press room, you are screwed. If he can draw attention to GOP obstructionism with this stunt, so much the better. The technical truth, though, is that Reid is filibustering the body that he runs, if he gets away with it at all.

    I don’t know if this is as clear as I want it to be; if not, sorry.

  • Thanks for the explanation, skeptic #20.

    #19 – what do you think, Dale? Now I’m even more convinced that Sen. Johnson will ride in on a shiny wheelchair with confetti flying all over…

    either that or Sen. Hagel will announce he is officially caucusing for the Democrats.

    aaaarrrghhhh! This is confusing!

  • AP: “Senators even left open the possibility of dispatching the sergeant at arms to summon colleagues from their homes to the floor if lawmakers ignored the debate. The threat was reminiscent of a 1988 debate on campaign finance reform in which Capitol police carried Oregon Republican Sen. Robert Packwood into the Senate feet first shortly after 1 a.m.”

    WHAT?! They can do that????

    • Comments are closed.